auto_register

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that an account is created externally, that the resulting key/token is auto-registered in the current session, and that it is returned for the user to save. It does not detail failure behavior, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds the key behavioral detail about HTTP-only calls and session registration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose, supported providers, and outcome. However, there is no output schema and the description only vaguely says the key/token is 'returned' without describing the return shape or error/timeout behavior, which leaves a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented there. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond naming supported providers and the overall outcome, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (register an account), the resource (a provider account), the output (API key/token), and the method (pure HTTP API calls). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create mailboxes or retrieve messages.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: it is for automatic provider registration without browser automation, and it lists the supported providers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases, but the use case is well implied by the purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.